Horror

The ‘Friday the 13th’ Reboot – Jason is Vicious, But the Movie is Bland

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

WRITER’S NOTE: This review was written back in 2009 when this reboot was released.

What better way to spend Singles Awareness Day (a.k.a. Valentine’s Day) than with an old friend who butchers camp counselors because they didn’t keep him from drowning, or supposedly so? I somehow doubt you can call this latest slasher adventure of Jason Voorhees a remake. Each sequel to the original “Friday the 13th” was basically a reworking of the first sequel which introduced Jason as the main killer of the franchise. Watching each successive sequel has been like witnessing a perverted sports event. How is Jason going to kill off those promiscuous teenagers? What weapons will he use? Will the ladies be as cute as they were in the previous movie? Will the guys be every bit as gullible as before? I think this is what makes people keep coming back to this never-ending franchise. We are curious to see how Jason will dispatch his latest batch of victims before he gets laid waste to by the final girl. John Carpenter said evil never dies, and Jason Voorhees is proof of this.

This “Friday the 13th” comes to us from Platinum Dunes, Michael Bay’s film company which made such unnecessary remakes of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” “The Hitcher” and “The Amityville Horror.” A lot of people complain about Bay the director, but I am more worried about Bay the producer. Still, the idea of bringing back Jason was too intriguing even for me to pass up.

In this particular “Friday,” Jason more threatening here than he has been in ages. For the last few movies, he has become a figure of such unbridled camp that he comes across as more of a joke. Here, he is as vicious as ever. This Jason does not just walk at lightning speed like he did in “Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan.” Here, he thrusts his weapons and impales his victims with sheer velocity. His mommy issues have never been more deeply rooted than they have been since the franchise first began.

The movie starts off more or less condensing the original, as it was Jason’s mother who was the brutal killer in that one. We see Jason’s mother, played by Nana Visitor from “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” (never piss off a Bajoran), get decapitated by the one camp counselor, female of course, who she couldn’t kill. We all know how seriously pissed she was at the counselors who let her son Jason drown, and now Jason will carry on her vengeance. The prologue is much longer than I ever could have expected, and in it we meet a bunch of kids who are seriously interested in obtaining a huge quantity of marijuana. Jason, however, is there with a bag over his head, the iconic hockey mask gets introduced later, killing off potential profiteers. It made wonder if Jason was actually a drug dealer as he apparently lives near such a big farm of green.

These kids meet a gruesome end (is there any other kind?), and the movie then moves ahead a couple of months to introduce us to a new set of victims. These ones though are not there to be camp counselors, but instead to stay in a house by the lake to have a “relaxing” weekend. The house belongs to the father of a snobby little spoiled brat named Trent (Travis Van Winkle), and his name wreaks of snobbery whether he likes it or not. Along with him is his girlfriend Jenna (Danielle Panabaker) who has no business being with a guy like him, an Asian smarty named Chewie (Aaron Yoo) who has yet to get laid, and a couple others who, whether they get laid or not, will most likely not live through the weekend. You also have the sole black man, Lawrence (Arlen Escarpeta), who loves to mess with white people and their prejudices they are blind to. Arlen has one of the best lines of dialogue, and you will know it when you hear it.

What makes this particular “Friday the 13th” different from the others? Not much. It has the requisite killings and naked breasts. Sean S. Cunningham, the director of the original, is along for the ride as a producer, and he is intent on giving the audience what they expect from a movie like this. What makes this franchise reboot different is it is a lot bleaker and more unrelenting than the other sequels.

Marcus Nispel directed this installment, and he also directed the Platinum Dunes remake of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” He gives it a washed out look, and it gives the proceedings a more realistic feel as well as a foreboding one. The tension is thick in the air, and even though the scares are pretty much where you would expect them to be. The killings are effectively brutal, but Nispel doesn’t dwell so much on the blood and gore as much as you might expect.

As for the characters, they really didn’t stick in mind for long after I left the theater. That’s the problem with movies like these. Not that I expect them to be in depth character studies, but it is clear these characters are presented as being ones who are quickly disposable. There are those who you want to live through the night, and there are others whose demise constantly root for, especially Trent. In the end, they are all fair sport for Jason who kills everything in his path. Having an Asian and a black character also shows how this masked killer knows no racial boundaries when it comes to slashing trespassers. After all these years, Jason Voorhees remains an equal opportunity murderer.

Jason is played in this incarnation by Derek Mears, an actor who played the Chameleon character in that awful sequel, “The Hills Have Eyes 2.” I liked how he gave Jason a fury we have not seen from in over a decade. Not that I want to take away from Kane Hodder, but Mears gives Jason a viciousness which makes him feel more dangerous than ever before.

Regardless of these positives, there is nothing particularly special to this “Friday the 13th.” Despite a higher standard of production values the other sequels never got, it still feels like an ordinary run of the mill slasher movie to where the one word I can best describe it as being is bland. It’s the kind of movie which doesn’t stay in the brain too long after you have seen it. While Jason may be more threatening than ever, it is not enough to make this movie seem altogether satisfying.

Also, I am really getting sick of this plot device in which cell phones do not work. I find it hard to believe there are places on this planet which do not have cell phone signals. Granted, the Hollywood Hills never seem to have them, but still, while this scenario worked fine in “The Hills Have Eyes” remake, this singular excuse to isolate these dumb characters continues to get weaker and weaker.

For what it’s worth, this is the first “Friday the 13th” movie I have ever seen in a theater. I always kept hearing about these movies as a kid, and I was fascinated with them even while Siskel & Ebert kept tearing them apart as “cynical filmmaking.” It took me a while to get around to actually watching them, and even then, I had the volume turned down. I also kept hearing from my friends how people reacted during them. One told me how, when he saw “Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood,” everyone started a chant when it looked like the most unlikable character, a horribly spoiled girl with no manners whatsoever, was about to get killed off. This led the audience members to start chanting:

“Kill the bitch, kill the bitch, kill the bitch, kill the bitch, KILL THE BITCH! KILL THE BITCH!! KILL THE BITCH!!! KILL THE BITCH!!!!!!”

That would have been fun to witness, and the fact that this “Friday the 13th” movie did not have it took away from the experience. While I admire how they made Jason more lethal, part of me missed the tongue in cheek qualities of this franchise. You know, the moments which reminded you it was just a movie, and how some critics take them way too seriously. Looking back, I feel like I missed out on something.

Jason should really engage in a group therapy session with Norman Bates because they have more in common than they realize. Of course, Jason doesn’t talk, but maybe Norman could get him to or perhaps teach him sign language. Hey, anything is possible, right?

* * out of * * * *

‘The Exorcist: Believer’ is Not a Worthy Sequel

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

William Friedkin’s “The Exorcist” was such a singular cinematic experience, let alone a singular horror film like few others, that making a sequel to it had to seem like a truly insane prospect. “The Exorcist II: The Heretic” proved to be as hideous piece of celluloid as the original was a brilliant one, “The Exorcist III” was undone by needless studio interference which made it look pitiful for no good reason, and the attempts to make a prequel got so messed up to where two versions of it were made, both of which proved to be quite flawed. Looking at this franchise, one which is quite accidental, it seems like one driven by profit more than anything else. Granted, sequels are generally made because the original was a big box office hit, but not all of them exist simply because of financial benefits for everyone involved.

Now we have “The Exorcist: Believer” which comes to us from David Gordon Green and his fellow filmmakers who gave us the recent “Halloween” trilogy which proved to be worthy sequels to a celebrated classic. And yes, I do include “Halloween Ends” which many despised. Like those films, this “Exorcist” installment serves as a direct sequel to Friedkin’s original, it completely ignores the other sequels to create its own cinematic path. What results is a motion picture which is not terrible, and I went into it refusing to expect it to be any equal to the original, but it still proves to be inconsequential and unnecessary as Friedkin’s film continues to be extremely difficult to make a sequel to.

We are introduced to professional photographer Victor Fielding (Leslie Odom Jr.) who is raising his daughter, Angela (Lidya Jewett), as a single parent following the tragic death of his wife. One day, Angela asks her dad if she can go over to her friend Katherine’s (Olivia O’Neill) to study. That’s okay, Victor says, but she needs to be prompt about returning home for dinner. When Angela fails to do so, and she and Katherine go missing, the whole town goes looking for them. Eventually, they are found alive 30 miles away from their home addresses, but both are convinced they were only gone for a few hours.

As you can expect, both Angela and Katherine turn out to be possessed, and Victor turns to others to help the girls before any more lasting damage can be inflicted. Among them are Ann (Ann Dowd), a nurse at a local hospital and a fallen Catholic, and Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn), an actress turned exorcism researcher who has since become renowned for her studies and her best-selling book on the subject. From there, we know we are in store for an exorcism, albeit one which cannot possibly be as intense as the one Friedkin gave audiences half a century ago.

Now you cannot go into “The Exorcist: Believer” expecting something along the lines of Friedkin’s original film as that is asking to be severely disappointed in the process. None of the sequels or prequels could touch it as the 1973 film is a cinematic experience not easily duplicated. But even with reserved expectations, “The Exorcist: Believer” just doesn’t work. It has some strong performances from Odom Jr. and Dowd, and there are some clever jump scares, but there is not enough to justify this as a significant follow-up to a celebrated classic.

The big news with this one is that Ellen Burstyn returns as Chris MacNeil for the first time since the first “Exorcist” film. But while Jamie Lee Curtis’ character of Laurie Strode was a major component of the recent “Halloween” trilogy, Chris MacNeil’s presence in “The Exorcist: Believer” feels like an afterthought, and while Burstyn is great as always, the character does not feel especially necessary to this installment. While it may give this film some legitimacy, Burstyn is barely in this film and does not get a lot to do.

When it comes to the climactic exorcism which the film’s title and its trailers have promised us, it is no surprise to find it utterly lacking in tension. Sure, there is some suspense as the adult characters are forced to make a choice no one wants to make, but it all feels lacking in the long run. As much as I wanted to view this film on its own instead of in comparison to the classic original, I could not help but be reminded of how intense and unnerving Friedkin’s film was. I wanted this exorcism to have the extreme intensity of what came before, and I knew that was not going to be the case which made this direct sequel all the more frustrating.

David Gordon Green is a terrific filmmaker. In addition to his “Halloween” trilogy, he has also directed films in various genres. He has given us “George Washington,” “Pineapple Express,” “All the Real Girls,” and “Joe” which features not only one of Nicolas Cage’s best performances, but also one of his most subtle, and that is saying a lot. I cannot help but wonder what made him, Scott Teems, Danny McBride, Jason Blum and all of Blumhouse were hoping to accomplish here. Were they hoping to make something which could stand alongside the original proudly, or at least be considered its equal?

For a moment, I thought Green might have some luck as the opening scenes in Haiti do have a documentary feel to them like the original did. But after a bit, it just felt like I was watching a movie. This is the biggest problem with “The Exorcist: Believer;” you watch it more than you experience it. You can see how the screws go in, and it does not help that the CGI effects utilized here are not all that great. Then again, I have long since been spoiled by the visual wonders of “Avatar: The Way of Water,” so nothing else can possibly compare.

Making a sequel or any kind of follow-up to “The Exorcist” is no different than anyone trying to make one to “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” Both those horror classics gave audiences a cinematic experience like few others, and they still remain enthralling and greatly unnerving so many years later. And yet, there are those who have turned these movies into franchises which may succeed financially, but never critically. They will forever be shadowed by a predecessor which can only make the best efforts look ever so pale in comparison, and yet people keep trying futilely to give us something worth watching. The fact that no one has succeeded in doing so should not come as a surprise.

Nevertheless, another “Exorcist” movie is set to be released in 2025, and the best way to look at this situation is to say Green and company have nowhere to go from here but up. Perhaps if they played around with the formula, they could audiences something more original which will stand on its own. Until then, I wonder if the ghost of William Friedkin will haunt Green just like he promised.

* * out of * * * *

Rolfe Kanefsky On His Horror Movie Satire ‘There’s Nothing Out There’

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

WRITER’S NOTE: This article is about a screening which took place in 2012.

Writer and director Rolfe Kanefsky appeared at New Beverly Cinema where Brian Collins of the Horror Movie a Day website presented a special midnight screening of his directorial debut, “There’s Nothing Out There.” Joining him for this screening were two of the film’s crew members, still photographer Dave Shelton and assistant director Michael Berily. It tells the story of a group of teenagers, one of them a horror movie fan, spending spring break at a cabin in the woods, and it pre-dates Wes Craven’s “Scream” in making fun of the clichés horror movies always deal with.

Kanefsky spoke with audiences about what got him into movie making, and of what spurred the idea for this particular film of his:

Role Kanefsky: I’ve wanted to make movies since I was four years old. As I got older, I watched every horror movie that was ever made which got me to thinking about why people keep making the same mistakes in this genre over and over again. I wrote the script when I was in high school, but no one really liked it.

Kanefsky then went to college where he wrote several scripts, but then he came back to the one he wrote for “There’s Nothing Out There” after he graduated. It was 1988 when he started looking for the money to make it, and he was able to get a few private investors to help him out. He even told the audience his parents helped by selling their house, and after that he had a budget of around $150,000. One audience member asked him if his parents ever got to buy their house back with the profits and he responded:

Rolfe Kanefsky: You don’t get into movies to make money. You get into them because you love to make them.

When asked about the house used in the film, Kanefsky said a friend of his from college found it for him. It was located right near the border of New York and New Jersey, and he described what it was like filming in and around the house:

Rolfe Kanefsky: It was owned by two women who were a couple, and one of them was a sound artist which came in very handy for us. We did, however, have to use three different houses for the interior, and this forced us to cheat certain shots so that everything matched up in the end.

When it came to specific influences, Kanefsky looked mostly to 1950’s monster films, and he made several nods to them throughout. But he was also looking to make fun of the overused clichés in horror movies like the one where a cat jumps out at characters from nowhere, and of how one person warns of the danger ahead while everyone else ignores their advice. Kanefsky did, however, make one thing very clear to us:

Rolfe Kanefsky: It was never my intention to mock the (horror) genre, but instead the lazy filmmaking that has overwhelmed it.

One unique thing about “There’s Nothing Out There,” when compared to other horror movies of the time, is that what’s stalking the characters is not a deranged serial killer, but instead a monster from another planet. Keep in mind, this film was made long before the advent of CGI effects, so there was a lot of puppeteering involved in bringing this creature to life. Kanefsky was specific in what he was looking for:

Rolfe Kanefsky: I didn’t want a guy in a suit for the creature because I wanted to do something different. The way I saw it, the creature was half alligator and half octopus. I also intentionally made it a dumb creature, and you can tell it was not the smartest as there was a big learning curve going on with it. We ended up having to use crowbars just to move its tentacles around.

Kanefsky then invited his fellow crew members to share their experiences of making “There’s Nothing Out There.” Dave Shelton still has very vivid memories of how it all started:

Dave Shelton: I was working at Nickelodeon at the time and there weren’t many things being shot in New Jersey back then. When I met with Rolfe and he talked about his script, I knew right away what his vision was. He also said that no one is getting paid to make this movie and knew it was going to be good as a result. We got a lot of family and friends to be extras in the movie and we improvised a lot of stuff. Not everything worked, but we did the best with what we had. This was such a fun project to be a part of.

Michael Berily was originally hired to be the second assistant director on the set, but things changed for him very quickly:

Michael Berily: The first AD left three days into shooting, so I took over and spent a lot of time yelling and screaming at people because I didn’t know what I was doing. Still, it was an incredible experience working on it, especially when it came to raising the money. Rolfe was very ambitious then as he does a lot of set ups in one day.

Kanefsky attributed his working style of numerous set-ups a day, far more than what most Hollywood productions are able to accomplish, as he and his crew had a twenty-four-day shooting schedule. He has since made over twenty movies since “There’s Nothing Out There,” and to date it still has the longest shooting schedule of any movie he has made.

Horror Movie A Day’s screening of “There’s Nothing Out There” at New Beverly Cinema was certainly a historic one as it marked the first time a 35mm print of the movie had been shown in twenty years. Kanefsky said there were a number of reasons why this was the case:

Rolfe Kanefsky: When we showed it to studios and critics, they were all ambivalent about supporting it because they saw it as too funny to be scary and too scary to be funny. The movie ended up getting a small theatrical release back in 1992, and we managed to get some good reviews from newspapers like the Los Angeles Times. After that it began building up more and more of an audience through midnight screenings… and then the L.A. Riots (following the Rodney King verdicts) happened, and that destroyed us because no one went to the movies for a long time after that.

Kanefsky has attributed its ongoing success to cable and video and now sees this movie as an underground film which people found over the years. The studio which released “There’s Nothing Out There” never really got behind it, he said, and it really found its audience through word of mouth.

Before the evening ended, audience members asked Kanefsky if there would ever be a sequel or a Blu-ray release:

Rolfe Kanefsky: Blu-ray? Maybe, but right now it doesn’t make financial sense to do that and neither does the sequel. We do have the capabilities and original elements to remaster the movie in high definition, but the special edition DVD hasn’t sold enough copies to justify us doing that.

He does however have a title for the sequel:

Rolfe Kanefsky: ‘There’s Still Nothing Out There.’ The tagline for it is, ‘if you were afraid of nothing before, its back!’

Well, hopefully we will get to see a Blu-ray release and a sequel become a reality. There is no doubt “There’s Nothing Out There” was a passion project for Kanefsky and his crew when they made it, and it is clear everyone involved in it worked really hard to make it a reality. That people are still talking about it twenty years later makes it a triumphant motion picture which survived in a marketplace where many other horror movies get swept under the rug, never ever making it to the silver screen.

‘The Exorcist’ Movie and 4K Review

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

The following review was written by Ultimate Rabbit correspondent, Tony Farinella.

It’s crazy to me to know “The Exorcist” is now celebrating its 50th anniversary. Unfortunately, we lost its legendary director recently in William Friedkin, a trailblazer who was not afraid to push the envelope and do things his own way in films such as “Cruising,” “The French Connection,” and “To Live and Die in L.A.”  He was an outspoken and passionate filmmaker who never backed down from his vision and his principles. I think it’s safe to say his most talked about film of all-time is “The Exorcist” which recently got a 4K upgrade from Warner Brothers Home Entertainment. Even to this day, people go to their local theater to watch it on the big screen, or they revisit it on home video when it’s spooky season.

There is quite an infamous backstory to the making of this film and getting it off the ground.  It’s a legitimate miracle the film was able to be made considering all of the roadblocks and obstacles the director and his crew had in making it. I could go into detail here, but it’s best to Google it, as it’s lengthy and strange.  I’ll just say this–many thought the film itself was cursed because of all the odd occurrences which happened to this production.  People would also heavily protest the film, and many filmgoers would faint and get sick while watching it.  The film has certainly developed quite a reputation over the years for a variety of reasons.

“The Exorcist” is set in Georgetown, Washington, D.C. and introduces the audience to actress Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn) and her twelve-year-old daughter Regan (Linda Blair). They are renting a house while Chris works on a film directed by Burke Dennings (Jack MacGowran), someone she considers a close friend.  We are also introduced to Father Damien Karras (Jason Miller), a psychiatrist at Georgetown University who works with fellow priests. Father Karras is struggling with guilt as he wishes he was spending more time with his mother, who is elderly, frail and unwell. He is also having a crisis of faith as well. At a party Chris is hosting, she notices some unusual behavior from Regan, and Regan is also talking about strange and weird noises in the attic.

From here, things only get worse for Regan as she starts to become vulgar, aggressive and develop facial sores.  She has baffled modern science as they can’t understand what is wrong with her. They think it has something to do with her brain, but it still doesn’t explain her actions or her superhuman strength. Once Regan becomes a danger to herself and others, they decide the only solution is to tie her to her bed and perform an exorcism.  There is a lot of hesitation on the part of Father Karras, as he doesn’t think it will turn out well and might only further damage young Regan.  However, if a more experienced priest helps him, he will do it.  This is where Father Merrin (Max von Sydow) comes in to help Father Karras with the exorcism that will hopefully save the child.

I’ve seen “The Exorcist” three times now, and I’ve really, really wanted to fall in love with it, but for whatever reason, it is a film I respect and admire but don’t love.  I can see the great acting on display from Jason Miller, Ellen Burstyn, and Linda Blair.  It’s impossible to ignore their range of emotions and their ability to sell this material and make it work. My issue is with the pacing of the film.  I’m all about letting things breathe and building up to something, but this is very much an all-or-nothing film at times.  At times, it’s moving a little too slowly without enough character build-up, and the plotting can be a little tedious.  At other times, it’s in-your-face, intense, and really mind-blowing.  There is really no middle ground with “The Exorcist.”

At fifty-years-old, “The Exorcist” is still an impactful horror film, without question.  I just wonder if it’s more built on its reputation and folklore at this point. One might even argue if it’s a horror film or a thriller. It is a little bit of both, which I think most horror films are to some degree unless they are just flat-out horror with no plot.  There is a plot here and a rhyme and reason to what unfolds, but it feels a little dated, in my opinion.  All in all, I think “The Exorcist” should get its flowers for being a horror film that was ahead of its time and has really opened the door for a lot of the supernatural horror films we see today from “The Conjuring” and “Insidious” world.  However, it’s a good yet flawed film, overall. As I stated earlier, I like it and it stays with me, which is a good thing, but I don’t love it and it doesn’t impact me, as much as I feel like it should, considering its place in film history.

* * * out of * * * *

4K Info: “The Exorcist” is released on a two-disc 4K release from Warner Brothers Home Entertainment.  It comes with two different 4K versions of the film.  One version is the theatrical cut, which is 122 minutes. The second disc is 132 minutes and features the extended director’s cut of the film in 4K.

Video/Audio Info:  Warner Brothers did a pretty good job of cleaning up this film. However, they didn’t clean it up so much that you aren’t able to enjoy the dark and moody look of the film. I would say it’s a good but not great transfer of the film.  I’ve seen better transfers of older films from Warner Brothers.  It does come with a very, very good Dolby Atmos soundtrack for the film, though. I was really blown away by how good the film sounds. It also comes with subtitles in English, French, and Spanish.

Special Features: The theatrical version comes with the following special features: an introduction by William Friedkin, a commentary track by Friedkin, and a commentary track by William Peter Blatty, who wrote the novel and the screenplay for the film, with special sound effects. The unrated version of the film also comes with a commentary by Friedkin. These are all older commentary tracks and the introduction is much older as well.  The big issue here is the fact they didn’t have a third disc with some of the special features from the previous Blu-ray release.

 Should You Buy It?

This is a rather tricky one.  I’ll say this–if you love “The Exorcist” and it’s one of your favorite films of all time, the transfer makes it worth the upgrade, even though I didn’t think it was a great transfer.  It has its issues, as, at times, it can be a little unfocused and not super clear.  If you own the Blu-ray, you should keep and not sell it because you will lose your special features with this 4K as it only has the commentary tracks and an introduction from the director. They really should have added a third disc just for the special features.  Overall, “The Exorcist” is a film that has earned its place in horror film history based on it being released at the right time with the right director and the right cast and crew.  It’s a good film.  However, I don’t think it’s a great film in my personal opinion. If you love the film, I think you will be happy with what Warner Brothers has done with the transfer.  It’s not a bad transfer by any means.  It’s just not a transfer that is going to “wow” you.  You will probably be very disappointed they didn’t port over the special features from the Blu-ray.  However, if this is your favorite horror movie, you want to own it on the best format out there right now, which is 4K.  If you are lukewarm on the film or think it’s merely good, you can keep your Blu-ray if you already own it.

**Disclaimer** I received a copy of this film from Warner Brothers to review for free.  The opinions and statements in the review are mine and mine alone.

‘Aliens’ Cast Talk About Their Challenges at the Days of the Dead Convention

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

On August 26, 2023, I found the time to attend the Days of The Dead convention which was held at the Hilton Hotel outside of LAX airport. The main highlight of the day for me was sitting in on the panel for “Aliens,” James Cameron’s classic film from the year 1986 which remains as exciting now as it was when first released. This brought many of the talent who worked in front of and behind the camera, and they were very enthusiastic to be here to discuss a motion picture you would think they have been asked every conceivable question about before this point.

One of the questions asked of everyone was about the biggest challenge everyone faced on set. The first to answer was Tom Woodruff Jr. He is best known as a special effects supervisor who studied under the tutelage of Stan Winston, and he later, along with Alec Gillis, founded Amalgamated Dynamics, an American special effects company specializing in animatronics and prosthetic make-up. “Aliens” was one of Tom’s earliest projects, and he was very direct with the audience about what he dealt with in this science fiction classic.

Tom Woodruff Jr.: For me, the biggest challenge was being on set with James Cameron (audience laughs). He was very specific. He’s a rare guy. He knows exactly what he wants, and he knows exactly what parts you don’t understand. The first time we had the aliens on set, it was a scene where there were a lot of fire throwers going on, and the alien was supposed to be hidden up in the wall and crawls out and reveals itself. We did a run through, and Cameron stopped the whole thing and he said, “Why is this alien brown and the rest of him is black?!” The answer I knew in my head was, I didn’t check it out. I remember he just grabbed a can of black spray paint, shook it up and sprayed it on the head. I also realized at that point we wasted a lot of time painting alien heads when we could have just grabbed a can of spray paint.

For Carrie Henn who plays the orphaned Newt, she had no prior acting experience when she was cast in “Aliens.” Her career as an actress did not last long as she later decided to become a schoolteacher after earning a degree in liberal studies and child development from California State University, Stanislaus. Her response to question given proved to be quite surprising.

Carrie Henn: One of the challenging things was actually being scared of it (the aliens) because, I mean, look at it. Everyone was in the suits at some point, but then they would turn around or I would see them outside of the suit completely or their head would be off. So, I would try to act like I was scared of it, when in reality I knew it was my friend. I was scared of dogs and still am because I have been bitten by many, so I used to just pretend that it was a dog chasing after me.

Ricco Ross portrays Private Ross in “Aliens,” and his most memorable lines of dialogue include “guess she doesn’t like the cornbread either” and “what are we supposed to use, harsh language?” He ended up turning down the opportunity to act in Stanley Kubrick’s “Full Metal Jacket” in order to appear in this film. Since “Aliens,” he has remained a busy actor in both movies and television and does not look to be lacking in work. This would still be the case were it not for the SAG/AFTRA and WGA strike which still rages on as I write this article.

Ricco Ross: The marines would have lunch and hang out in one area and the aliens would hang out in another area, and we didn’t kick it together. But I remember walking by one day and one of the aliens had his head under his arm and smoking a cigarette, and this was before iPhones, and I wish I had a camera because it was an amazing kind of classic photograph.

Cynthia Scott, also known as Cynthia Dale Scott, portrayed Corporal Dietrich in “Aliens,” and her other credits include “Rush” which stars Jason Patric and Jennifer Jason Leigh. She has long since left acting behind her and now dedicates her life to working in the visual arts. Her answer to this question reminded me of perhaps her most famous line in this film which is, “Maybe they don’t show up on infrared at all.”

Cynthia Scott: I think I am the only one that was grabbed by the alien, and it was extremely challenging because I did half of my own stunt. If you recall, I was taken straight up in the air, and we were so old school that the stunt was achieved with a gigantic sea saw. It was operated by a bunch of crew members. So, I was standing on the downside, and I say my line and the stuntman in the alien suit landed behind me, grabbed me, and simultaneously the crew members pulled down really fast on the other end and we go shooting up in the air so our whole center of gravity changes. And simultaneously I am lowering my live flamethrower and using it ostensibly on my friend Ricco (audience laughs). The first three or four takes, I fell off. I was so terrified of James Cameron that I thought I would be fired today. I’m telling you; it was really hard.

William Hope portrays Gorman, the inexperienced commanding officer of the Marines who would have been best to listen Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) if he had been quick to think about it. Like Ricco Ross, he turned down a role in “Full Metal Jacket” to appear in “Aliens.” Since then, he has given memorable performances in such movies as “Hellbound: Hellraiser II,” “Shining Through,” the cinematic version of the television show “The Saint,” “Captain America: The First Avenger,” “Dark Shadows,” and the recent reboot of a sequel to “Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” His words about James Cameron rang very true.

William Hope: Jim in those days was cutting his teeth in more ways than one because he knew everybody’s job better than they did apart from the actors. So, I was just obsessed with don’t screw this up. We knew the script was just something of a masterpiece. We knew it was very, very special. As for you guys (the alien actors), the only direct contact that I had was when the aliens come through the roof. It was just the most exciting scene to play. The big challenge was getting it right and Jim saying, “Good, okay, move on.”

Mark Rolston portrayed Drake, a close friend to fellow badass marine Vasquez who was played by Jenette Goldstein. His other credits include playing Hans in “Lethal Weapon 2,” Stef in “Robocop 2,” and Bogs Diamond in “The Shawshank Redemption.” He also acted in “The Departed” which earned its director, Martin Scorsese, his first ever Academy Award, and co-starred in “Saw V” and Saw VI” as Dan Erickson. On television, he portrayed Gordie Liman on “The Shield.”

Mark Rolston: The thing I remember was the creature creation. I actually came back to set to watch the entrance of the queen alien. It is seared in my memory because she was like a two-story puppet which was controlled by guys on the crew. The smallest guy on Tom (Woodruff Jr.’s) crew was the guy who gets stationed in the head, and his sole job, aside from being dressed in black and trying to hide, was to push the queen alien goo out the tail. Cameron at one moment said, “There’s too much goo! Too much goo! You are pushing on the wrong tube!” I was giggling my ass over that one, but it was such an impressive shot. You look at the film and you believe this is a living monster, but onstage you see it’s just a puppet. Such masterful filmmaking.

We are getting closer to the 40th anniversary of “Aliens,” and this sequel still holds up all these years later. Some of us got to see when it debuted in theaters back in 1986, and others like myself watched on VHS. But even on the small screen, this still proved to be one of the greatest cinematic roller coaster rides we ever went on, and it is so great to see new generations of movie buffs feel the same from one new year to the next.

Exclusive Interview with Ashley Rickards about ‘A Haunted House 2’

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

I got to attend the press day for “A Haunted House 2” back in 2014. This satirical horror comedy sequel was released one year after the original, and it catches up with Malcolm Johnson (Marlon Wayans) as he moves into a new home with his girlfriend Megan (Jamie Pressly) and her two children, Becky (Ashley Rickards) and Wyatt (Steele Stebbins). As you can imagine, Malcolm and company are soon met by a bizarre series of paranormal events, and the sequel goes out of its way to spoof such horror hits as “The Conjuring,” “Sinister,” “Paranormal Activity” and “Annabelle” among others.

In addition to speaking with Marlon Wayans and Jamie Pressly, I also did get to sit down with Ashley Rickards to talk about her role as Becky. For various reasons, this interview was not published at the time of this film’s release, but I present to you now after rediscovering all these years later.

Rickards is best known for playing Jenna Hamilton on the MTV comedy-drama series “Awkward,” and as the troubled Samantha Walker on “One Tree Hill.” She graduated from high school at the age of 15, and is currently a member of MENSA. In addition, she also published a book entitled “A Guide to Getting it Together Once and For All” which we did talk a bit about during this interview (although she did have a different title for it back then), and she helped to launch the Project Futures Somaly Mam Foundation which works to prevent and end human trafficking and sexual slavery in Southeast Asia.

Please check out my interview with Ashley Rickards down below, and you can also watch the interviews I conducted with Marlon Wayans and Jamie Pressly which I did for We Got This Covered.

Exclusive Interview with the Cast of ‘The Gallows’

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

Looking through my vast collection of movie interviews, I came across this one which I did with the cast of “The Gallows.” Released back in 2015, it is a found footage horror film written and directed by Chris Lofing and Travis Cluff, and it opens up on a production of a play called, coincidentally, “The Gallows” which was done at Beatrice High School back in 1993. Everything looks to be going smoothly, but then an actor named Charlie Grimille is accidentally hanged and killed when the prop noose around his neck ends up malfunctioning, and the students and parents look on in horror.

The film then moves forward twenty years later to 2013 when the school attempts to put on a new performance of “The Gallows” in honor of Charlie’s memory. But, as you can expect, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the young adults who are part of this production soon find that they are not alone as something ominous is hiding in the shadows. Suffice to say, they find themselves in fear for their lives, and some learn in the worst way how certain things are better left alone.

This interview took place at Hollywood High School in Los Angeles, California, and it quickly proved to be one of the most cinematic press days I have ever been a part of. “The Gallows” stars Cassidy Gifford (the daughter of Frank and Kathie Lee Gifford), Reese Mishler, Pfeifer Brown who would go on to appear in “The Gallows Part II,” and Ryan Shoos who co-starred in “The Red Tie Massacre.” We had fun talking about the improvisation they did on set, working with the video cameras given to them, and of the advantage of playing characters with the same first names as theirs.

Please check out the interview below. “The Gallows” is now available to own and rent on DVD, Blu-ray and Digital. Watch it if you dare…

‘Evil Dead Rises’ Movie and 4K Review

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

The following review was written by Ultimate Rabbit correspondent, Tony Farinella.

Like many horror fans out there, I’m a huge fan of the “Evil Dead” franchise, from the previous four installments to the TV show that aired a few years back, “Ash Vs. Evil Dead.” When I heard they were going to make a fifth “Evil Dead” film, I was brimming with excitement.  The trailer looked exciting, and I was ready for an R-rated horror film that was going to deliver the goods when it came to violence and intensity mixed with great characters and acting. The film delivers on its ultraviolence and its gore, but the rest of it is missing something.  Because of this, I had very mixed feelings on “Evil Dead Rise.”

Right from the opening scene of “Evil Dead Rise,” it is clear director Lee Cronin is not going to pull any punches with the in-your-face violence. Once we get to the apartment building, the film introduces us to Ellie (Alyssa Sutherland), a tattoo artist who is taking care of her three children after her husband left her.  This is news to her sister, Beth (Lily Sullivan), a guitar technician who travels a lot on the road pursuing a career in music.  Because of this, she isn’t always the best sister or aunt, as she’s constantly traveling.  She has missed a lot in their lives and is hoping to catch up with them now.

The three children are Bridget (Gabrielle Echols), a rebellious teenage girl, Danny (Morgan Davies), a mischievous teenage boy, and the youngest daughter Kassie (Nell Fisher). They all live in a condemned apartment building and are doing their best to stay positive despite a difficult situation. One night in the basement parking lot after an earthquake, Danny discovers some ancient relics he believes will help their family financially.  It is a series of records along with the infamous Necronomicon.  Of course, it wouldn’t be an “Evil Dead” movie if someone didn’t listen to the records or read the book.  Once that happens, you better believe strange and weird things are going to start occurring to this family.

As far as what I enjoyed about the film, I would definitely point to the creative and clever use of violence.  For the majority of the film, it takes place in this one apartment, but it doesn’t stop the director from using anything and everything he can get his hands on in order to escalate blood and gore. There were definitely a few scenes which had me wincing at the screen, as they really went for it in the gore department. Truthfully, it is the best thing the film has going for it.  If only they had a well-crafted and interesting story to add to the mayhem, that would have been something special.

At this point, I think they need to do something different with the “Evil Dead” franchise while also staying true to what makes these films so popular.  Of course, it is difficult to walk that tightrope, but it’s rather obvious what’s going to happen. You start to notice certain clichés and tropes which are associated with this franchise.  I thought 2013’s “Evil Dead” was really, really good, and I was hoping they were going to come back, ten years later, and really feed off that energy and intense acting.  For the most part, the acting is OK.  This felt more like a VOD version of “Evil Dead.”  I know these films aren’t known for having huge budgets, but it didn’t feel like a big deal while I was watching it.

This film is only 96 minutes, yet it feels like they crammed a lot into those 96 minutes. They also didn’t take enough time to develop and grow the characters beyond what I wrote in my descriptions of them. I didn’t dislike them in any way, but I also wasn’t really rooting for them at the same time.  If they had taken just a little bit of time to make them a little more layered and added more emotional depth, it would have really added to the stakes. It felt like they just tacked on generic backstories without allowing us to spend time with them in order to care about when their lives are in danger. Again, I felt underwhelmed by this film overall.

* * ½ out of * * * *

4K Info: “Evil Dead Rise” is released on a two-disc 4K and Blu-ray combo pack from Warner Brothers Home Entertainment.  It comes with a digital code for the film as well.  It is rated R for strong bloody horror violence and gore, and some language, and has a running time of 96 minutes.

Video Info:  This film has a very, very dark look to it, sometimes a little too dark at times.  It does add to the atmospheric mood and sense of dread, but at times a little color would have helped the proceedings. It might just have been the vision of the filmmaker to keep it dark throughout. In the opening scene, it is crystal clear when they are outdoors.

Audio Info: The Dolby Atmos track is very, very good, especially for a horror film.  It doesn’t bang you over the head during the jump scares or the gory sequences.  It stays level throughout the course of the film. Subtitles are included in English, Spanish, and French.

Special Features: NONE

Should You Buy It?

I was hoping they would have added Dolby Vision to “Evil Dead Rises” as I think it would have helped with some of the darker scenes to make them a little crispier and cleaner.  I understand this is a dark horror film in a condemned apartment building, but at times it is too dark to really take in what is happening on screen. Even though this film received a 4K release, there are no special features to speak of, which was very, very surprising. I know that happens with certain Blu-ray releases, but I would have thought they would have had some quick behind-the-scenes interviews or a commentary track with the director at least. I think the film is worth watching when it’s on Max (formerly HBO Max), but I really can’t recommend it because it doesn’t have a great transfer and there are no special features. As far as the film itself, I’m still very mixed with my feelings on it, as you can tell from this review.  I thought the blood and the gore were really inventive, creative, and intense beyond belief.  However, the story is starting to become a little stale at this point, and this film didn’t feel all that sacred, special, or important to the “Evil Dead” franchise. It is my least favorite of the five films.

**Disclaimer** I received a copy of this film from Warner Brothers to review for free.  The opinions and statements in the review are mine and mine alone.

‘Hollywood Dreams & Nightmares: The Robert Englund Story’ – Freddy’s a Nice Guy!

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

Recently, I was listening to an episode of Mick Garris’ podcast “Post Mortem” in which he talked with those involved in the horror genre who are currently walking the picket lines for the Writers Guild of America strike. In his conversations with Leigh Whannell, Darren Lynn Bousman and “Fright Night” director Tom Holland, I came to see how those who make scary movies are the nicest and most kind in the business as they constantly wish the best for one another. In any other part of Hollywood, jealousy typically rears its ugly head to an infinite degree as insecurity remains a constant.

I was reminded of this while watching the documentary “Hollywood Dreams & Nightmares: The Robert Englund Story” as it brings together a plethora of horror actors and filmmakers such as Eli Roth, Tony Todd, Lance Henriksen, Adam Green and Lin Shaye among many others. But regardless of their love of horror films, they are mainly here to talk about the actor who originated the role Freddy Krueger in Wes Craven’s “A Nightmare on Elm Street.” What results is a documentary which delves deeply into Englund’s career and ponders whether is best to be known for portraying one character or many.

Directors Christopher Griffiths and Gary Smart take their sweet time looking over Englund’s acting career, and it is great to look at when he started as this is something I have not seen enough about, His parents were not keen on him becoming an actor as they felt he was destined to become a lawyer. Hearing this, it kind of sounds like he had Kurtwood Smith’s character from “Dead Poets Society” as a father (“You’re going to Harvard, and you’re going to be a doctor”). Nevertheless, he idolized Steve Allen, and the acting bug bit him really hard.

While he was determined to become a stage actor, thinking it would be a fair business (no business ever is), he eventually made his way to Hollywood where he made his film debut in “Buster and Billie.” It was interesting to learn that he was typecast for years as a southern redneck for years, and his breakthrough role turned out not be as Freddy, but instead as resistance leader Willie. This brought him worldwide fame, playing one of the nicest aliens in a show filled with devious ones. And then came the child murderer who haunted and killed the younglings on Elm Street. From there, audiences around the world would quickly forget he ever placed nice guys.

Back in the 1980’s, there was no escaping Freddy Krueger as he was literally everywhere. On top of appearing in “A Nightmare on Elm Street” and its many sequels, there was also the television series “Freddy’s Nightmares,” and I believe there was even a rap album. I mean, let’s face it, everyone had a rap album back in the 80’s. Whether it was a good rap album or a horrifically awful one is open to debate.

This is the part of the documentary I was especially interested in because, while Englund never lacked for work in the 80’s, I wondered how he felt about being known for this character more than any other he has ever portrayed. As actors, we yearn to have a career like the ones Meryl Streep and Robert De Niro have as they continue to have the fortune to portray a sublime variety of characters to where it appeared as though they could play anyone and anything. But being typecast seems like a lifelong prison sentence to where no one will let you get paroled in this lifetime.

While I hoped Griffiths and Smart would have dug deeper into Englund’s typecasting as it clearly had an effect on the work he was able to do outside of Elm Street. He makes clear at one point about how he was forced to turn down several roles because of his involvement in the franchise which built up New Line Cinema, and that must have wounded him more than we see here.

An example of this typecasting comes when Englund and others talk about his role in “The Phantom of the Opera” in which he plays another horribly disfigured character, but one who is madly in love with a soprano singer and kills others to steal their skin and apply it to his mangled face.. And yet, when this particular film was being released, its American poster featured a picture of him as Freddy taking a mask off. While Englund was trying to do something a little different, Hollywood still played it safe by reminding audiences he was Freddy.

But the real surprise and satisfaction I had with “Hollywood Dreams & Nightmares” was seeing how Englund looks at his fame as a “happy accident.” Whereas some actors have been desperate to escape the horror genre, Englund has found a wealth of opportunities within it which he may not have gotten elsewhere. Even in movies like “The Mangler,” “Wishmaster,” “Urban Legend,” “2001 Maniacs,” “Hatchet,” “Zombie Strippers” and “Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon,” he has had the good fortune to portray a variety of characters to where you have to envy what he has accomplished in his long career.

Also, this documentary makes it very clear how nice a guy Englund is in real life. This shows in the way he talks and acts around others, and from the various participants who are interviewed throughout. While he may have a dark side, and everyone does by the way, it’s usually the nicest people who end up portraying the most devilish of characters. Some may disagree, but judge not lest ye be judged.

And again, the horror community on display here seems like a great group of people as everyone speaks warmly of one another. Considering how maligned a genre it has been made out to be by many critics and the touchiest of individuals, we see how it deserves to be taken much more seriously. Whether you like horror films or not, the majority of them are not crap or easily disposable.

While this is not a groundbreaking documentary in any way, shape or form, “Hollywood Dreams & Nightmares: The Robert Englund” gives us a memorable portrait of an actor who never set out to be a horror icon but became one out of sheer luck and with the help of engine oil he put into his hair for his Freddy audition. Watching Englund here reminds me of how actors can never really prepare their careers as they may end up in a far different place than they ever dreamed. Like the Rolling Stones said, you can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find you get what you need.

One more thing, I do hope Englund gets to play Freddy Krueger one more time. His appearance on “The Goldbergs” should not be the character’s swan song. Maybe they could do something along the lines of “Logan” where we see an old age Freddy. Hey, maybe even a musical would work. Just get Baz Luhrmann to direct it and it will be spectacular! I can see it now:

“Freddy Krueger

That old man Krueger

He just keeps slashing away!”

* * * ½ out of * * * *

‘Evil Dead’ Remake Has its Moments, but it Could Have Been Better

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

Seriously, I really wanted to love this remake of “Evil Dead” the way my fellow horror fans did. They seem to be thrilled about this one in ways they usually are not when it comes to remakes of any kind, and we knew way in advance that this remake was designed to be an incredibly gory delight. But while the filmmakers did their best to not just do the same old thing with their take on Sam Raimi’s immortal cult classic from 1981, the story of a group of young adults trapped in an old cabin and being terrorized by demons has now been told one too many times for it to thrill me anymore. Furthermore, they spent more time making this movie look bloody as hell instead of truly scary, and this is why it fell apart for me.

The character of Ash was wisely left out of this interpretation as no one would dare try to replace Bruce Campbell in this unforgettable role. Heck, even if Campbell was dead, no one would be recklessly stupid as to attempt such a foolish feat as replacing him in this role would be like replacing the late Richard Belzer as John Munch. Instead, the story centers around a young woman named Mia (Jane Levy) who has come to that horrific cabin in the woods to kick her opiate addiction once and for all. She is joined by her brother, David (Shiloh Fernandez), with whom she has not always had the best relationship, and his sexy girlfriend, because guys like him just have to have one, Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore). Also present are her friends Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) and Olivia (Jessica Lucas) who have watched Mia go through detox before, and they are not sure they can handle her going through it again.

This “Evil Dead” takes its sweet time setting up the characters and their backstories before they discover the Naturom Demonto, best known as being the Book of the Dead. I loved how so many of the pages had things written on it such as DON’T SAY THESE WORDS OUT LOUD, and yet Eric, whose job as a high school teacher has made him quite cynical, just has to read them anyway. Besides, how is a horror movie supposed to work if nobody does anything incredibly stupid? Those faceless demons then make their way to the isolated cabin with the sole intention of possessing its inhabitants and then killing them off one by one. The question is, which one of them will be left standing at the end?

This remake was directed by Fede Alvarez who made the short film “Ataque de Pánico!” (aka “Panic Attack!”) which was a big hit on You Tube, and he would later go on to make the terrific horror thriller “Don’t Breathe.” He does not seem the least bit shy about giving us tons of blood and gore, and it made me wonder what graphic images he had to cut out in order to avoid an NC-17 rating. You have one character slicing their tongue in half, another tearing chunks of flesh out of their face, and yet another using a nail gun the same way Danny Glover used one in “Lethal Weapon 2.” And let us not forgot that one person who gets a chainsaw shoved into a part of their body which would eliminate the need for a tonsillectomy. Still, no NC-17. Perhaps this is because in this version, no one gets raped by a tree.

But while Alvarez and company put a lot of work into the gory effects, I wished they had put just as much effort into the story. Things are played a lot more seriously here than they need to be, and it would have been great if they included more of the original’s sense of humor which helped to make it so memorable. With this remake, the filmmakers are already at a disadvantage because this kind of story has been told to death far too many times already. We quickly know where the characters are heading once they mistake of unlocking the door to that darn cabin, and all we can do is wonder who will be the first to die and how.

Also, there is way too much shaky camerawork going and, when this remake came out, I was getting to the point where I can no longer defend anyone going overboard with this kind filmmaking. I used to get a kick out of shaky cam, but I have since come to believe this technique is best to Paul Greengrass.

As for the actors, the majority of them are just okay. Not that the cast of the original gave Oscar worthy performances, but they were a lot livelier than this bunch. The strongest performance comes from Jane Levy, best known for her work on the television shows “Shameless” and “Suburgatory,” as Mia. While her character is one messed up individual, Levy makes you get deeply involved in Mia’s plight from start to finish to where we never want to abandon her.

When all is said and done, it is impossible not to have had high expectations for this particular horror remake as Raimi, Campbell and Robert G. Tapert (producer of the original “Evil Dead”) were on board to make sure the fans got all the blood and gore they wanted. As a result, I knew this version would not be dumbed down into some lame PG-13 flick where all the edge was rendered moot for mass consumption. I did enjoy parts of it, and it did keep me entertained for the most part. But considering the talent involved, I expected it to be a lot more than what it was.

The great thing about the original “Evil Dead” was how Raimi was able to pull off so many clever and innovative shots on such a low budget. Alvarez was able to work with a much larger budget this time around ($17 million), but while he certainly does try his hardest, he cannot top what Raimi did or bring much of anything new to this material. I do have to give him some credit as he gets away with using practical special effects instead of throwing a bunch of cheap CGI crap at us. This is what helps to keep the goings on more entertaining than they should be. In no way should this remake seem like a total loss as it did give us filmmakers and actors who have since moved on to bigger and better things, and they deserve to be where they are at. Still, I wished I liked this version much more than I did.

I came out of this “Evil Dead” remake with some hope despite my mixed reaction to it as I wondered if it could possibly give Hollywood enough of a reason to give us a fourth film with Ash Williams following the events of “Army of Darkness.” People had been praying for a fourth “Evil Dead” film for years, and we finally got one in the form of a cable series entitled “Ash vs Evil Dead.” This proved to be loads of fun, but when it was all over, Campbell made it clear he was retiring the character once and for all as he could no longer tackle the physical and emotional punishment, but we have a new one entitled “Evil Dead Rise” which looks to reinvigorate the franchise in a whole other way. Here is hoping it is worth the wait.

By the way, for those of you who have not yet watched this “Evil Dead” remake, I implore you to sit through the end credits as there is a special surprise at the very end. Trust me, it is worth the wait. And, sad to say, it was my favorite part of this film.

* * ½ out of * * * *